Democratic lawmaker plans to leave Congress later this year
Democratic Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island will depart Congress later this year to serve as president and CEO of the Rhode Island Foundation.
The lawmaker will be relinquishing his role as a representative effective June 1 and beginning his new job on that same date.
Cicilline, who has served as a House lawmaker for more than a decade, won reelection in November 2022 and began serving his seventh term in January 2023 — but he will now be leaving office well before the end of his current term.
Republicans currently control a majority of seats in the House chamber.
"Serving the people of Rhode Island’s First Congressional District has been the honor of my lifetime. As President and CEO of one of the largest and oldest community foundations in the nation, I look forward to expanding on the work I have led for nearly thirty years in helping to improve the lives of all Rhode Islanders," Cicilline said in a statement, according to a press release.
Cicilline claims that the new job will enable him to more directly impact Rhode Islanders.
"The chance to lead the Rhode Island Foundation was unexpected, but it is an extraordinary opportunity to have an even more direct and meaningful impact on the lives of residents of our state. The same energy and commitment I brought to elected office, I will now bring as CEO of the Rhode Island Foundation, advancing their mission to ensure all Rhode Islanders can achieve economic security, access quality, affordable healthcare, and attain the education and training that will set them on a path to prosperity," he said
A Rhode Island Foundation press release describes the entity as "the largest and most comprehensive funder of nonprofit organizations in Rhode Island. Through leadership, fundraising and grant-making activities, often in partnership with individuals and organizations, the Foundation is helping Rhode Island reach its true potential," the press release states.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Democrats immediately object when House Republican proposes members recite Pledge of Allegiance before committee meeting
Fireworks erupted at a House Judiciary Committee meeting on Wednesday after a Republican member proposed a resolution that members say the Pledge of Allegiance before meeting.
But the seemingly innocuous resolution caused a long, heated debate when Democratic members immediately objected.
What happened?
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) proposed an amendment to the committee's rules that would require each member to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before conducting committee business.
"On the Judiciary Committee, we are charged with vindicating the constitutional rights of our fellow Americans, and our Pledge of Allegiance is a national symbol of pride and unity," he explained. "My amendment gives the committee the opportunity to begin each of its meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance."
But Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the committee, immediately opposed it.
"I would oppose it simply on the grounds that, as members know, we pledge allegiance every day on the floor. And I don't know why we should pledge allegiance twice in the same day to show how patriotic we are," he said. "I don't think this is the most important amendment in the world."
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) swiftly demonstrated why Nadler's objection was, perhaps, not justified.
"I've not seen Mr. Nadler on the floor when the pledge is done, and most members are not present there," Johnson said. "So it's not accurate to say we do the pledge every day or participate in the pledge every day. It may be offered, but you’re not there for it."
JUST IN: Matt Gaetz Amendment Causes Massive Debate In House Judiciary Committee Hearing www.youtube.com
From there, the civility of the meeting quickly went downhill. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) countered with his own amendment barring "insurrectionists" from leading the Pledge of Allegiance. Gaetz responded that Democrats also have a history of not supporting the outcome of presidential elections or denying their legitimacy.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) later undercut Cicilline's argument completely, noting that "insurrection" is a crime and would disqualify those convicted of it from serving in the House. Cicilline was thus forced to admit that no one on the committee was guilty of "insurrection."
At one point, Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) took the opportunity to point out what he believed was the absurdity of the debate.
"I'm almost speechless," he said. "I know it's a real backbreaker. ... We can [go] that little extra mile, stand up, put our hand on our chest, say what we believe, and reaffirm this America that we love. Come on. This can't be real. I can't believe we're having this debate."
\u201cWould you believe me if I said the first half hour of our @JudiciaryGOP hearing has been wasted because Democrats oppose saying the pledge of allegiance?\u201d— Congressman Jeff Van Drew (@Congressman Jeff Van Drew) 1675263416
What was the result?
Ultimately, Cicilline's amendment was blocked by a vote of 24-13, NBC News reported.
Gaetz's, on the other hand, was unanimously approved by a vote of 39-0.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Dem lawmaker explodes when faced with push back on gun control: 'Spare me the bulls*** about constitutional rights'
Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) exploded during a congressional hearing Thursday, admitting that he does not want to be bothered with constitutional rights when it comes to discussing gun control.
What happened?
During a House Judiciary Committee meeting to discuss gun control legislation, Cicilline shouted down Republicans for raising due process concerns over so-called "red flag" laws.
Red flag laws permit authorities to preemptively strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights if they are ruled an imminent danger to themselves or others. Some Republican lawmakers believe citizens should be afforded due process before a judge bars them from possessing firearms.
When several Republicans made that exact objection at the hearing, Cicilline lost it.
"This is a radical position being offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle," Cicilline began. "They claim that we should support ensuring that people who are an imminent danger to themselves and others, such as they might commit mass murder, have a constitutional right to access a firearm. And to deny them that right would, quote, 'trample on an individual's due process and Second Amendment rights.'"
"You know who didn’t have due process? You know who didn’t have their constitutional right to life respected?" he continued. "The kids at Parkland, and Sandy Hook, and Uvalde, and Buffalo, and the list goes on and on."
"So spare me the bulls*** about constitutional rights," Cicilline declared.
Markup: H.R. 7910, the “Protecting Our Kids Act” youtu.be
What do Democrats want?
This week, Democrats proposed the Protecting Our Kids Act.
The legislation would raise the age to purchase most semiautomatic rifles from 18 to 21 years old; create new federal offenses for gun trafficking; prohibit the import, sale, or possession of so-called "large-capacity" magazines, thus limiting magazines to just 10 rounds of ammunition; and set new regulations on the storage of firearms on residential properties, among other provisions.
The bill passed the House Judiciary Committee late Thursday in a vote that fell down party lines. The bill will likely pass the full House, but is doomed to fail in the Senate.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com